Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I tabled the amendments to probe a little further the differences between the procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 and this Bill. In particular, Amendments 85CA and 85DBA concern a sustainability appraisal when the marine policy statement is produced or reviewed. When I read Clause 44, on the review of the MPS, it surprised me that it consisted of only one sentence. That prompted me to look at the Planning Act, which devotes almost a whole page to reviewing a national policy statement. I then tried to identify the differences or omissions when comparing the national policy statements and the MPS. My first amendment, Amendment 85CA, concerns the need to, "““carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the policy””," when preparing the MPS. I know that Clause 42(1)(a) says that the MPS must state, "““general policies … for contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK marine area””." I apologise to the Committee if it seems that this amendment goes over old ground, but my comments are important in relation to preparing the MPS and, therefore, relate to this clause. I have two points. The first concerns the word ““contributing””, rather than ““promoting””, and goes back to our debate on Clause 2. I do not propose to regurgitate those arguments, other than to say that this overarching policy document, the MPS, should be subject to stronger wording than just ““contributing to … sustainable development””. For example, the marine conservation zones will satisfy the current requirement in the Bill, as there is no doubt that they will contribute to sustainable development. The Bill effectively says, ““So that’s all right then. We’ve made our contribution and we can do what we like with the rest of the seas””. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, but that is the effect at the moment. There should be something stronger in the Bill. My second point concerns the wording that the MPS must state ““general policies””. It struck me that the marine policy statement might end up being as woolly as we agreed that Clause 2 was on the objectives of the MMO. The marine policy statement should be a robust document with strong policies clearly set out. When I was a soldier, we were taught that, before carrying out an operation, the officer commanding had to give his orders. The first and most important part of giving orders was to say what the mission—the prime objective—was. The mission statement had to be clear, concise and, if possible, in one sentence. It would be followed by a detailed method of achieving the aim, so that all those taking part in the operation were left in no doubt as to their role and the part that they were expected to play in achieving that single objective. An example of a mission statement might be, ““We will attack and capture the enemy position on top of that hill””. That is clear, concise—it is one sentence—and leaves no doubt as to what the objective is. I would expect both Clause 2, on the objective of the MMO, and the aim of the MPS to be just as concise. For example, the aim of the MPS might be, ““To set out policies to ensure that the marine environment is protected while allowing human activity to continue””. It would then be followed by concise and robust methods of how that was to be achieved and would leave no doubt to all those involved in the marine area of their duties and expectations. Therefore, I have concerns when the Bill talks of general policies. That is too woolly and wishy-washy. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the MPS will be concise and robust. The next two amendments concern requirements when reviewing the MPS and were triggered when I read the single sentence in Clause 44. The Planning Act requires that, before a statement is amended, an appraisal of the sustainability of the policy set out in the new aim must be carried out. Secondly, the Act states that a statement can be amended only if the relevant consultation, publicity and parliamentary requirements have been complied with. We should like to ensure that these two requirements are replicated in a review of the MPS. Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 5 states that, "““‘relevant document’ means … amendments of an MPS””," but it is not clear that a review includes the provisions laid out in these two amendments. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is the Government’s intention. If it is, should that not be made clear in the Bill? I beg to move.